Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

The overall impact of these amendments is to expand the application of the covenant to all public authorities, not just those falling under the direct authority of a Minister of the Crown. It would be useful if the Minister could tell the Committee why the Government opted for the language in the Bill, rather than looking to similar existing Acts with existing definitions, for their legislative purpose. As I have said, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 both apply to the wider public sector and, as such, those Acts have a broader definition of “national authority” than that in the Bill. I would also be grateful if he could clarify exactly which bodies the Ministry of Defence believes would be subject to the covenant if the Bill were kept as is. If the Government acknowledge that key public bodies will be excluded from the legal duty, I hope they will be willing to engage with me before Report and come up with an appropriate government amendment to rectify this omission. If not, I have to indicate that I may be minded to push these amendments to a division.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I gave way to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, precisely because she had her name first on a set of amendments in this group. I am delighted that I did so because in the previous Parliament, when she sat on the Government Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, now the Minister, sat on the Opposition Benches and I still sat in this corner, I kept encouraging the Government to expand the Armed Forces covenant—not only in the way the previous Government sought to do, but to bring it within the purview of the Government and make it a duty on them. At Second Reading, I welcomed the provisions of the Bill. I am delighted that the previously diffident former Minister, now sitting on the Opposition Benches and speaking for His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, sees how important it is to expand the Armed Forces covenant.

The amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, are valuable. Quite whether we need the level of detail in them, or how we go about them, needs to be thought about. I am sure the Minister will have all sorts of reasons why these specific amendments might not be the best way of doing it. I hope that, in his response, he can explain whether the noble Baroness is right that currently, HMRC, or the proposed defence housing service, do not come under the requirement to be under a duty to the Armed Forces covenant. If they are not under that duty, I would be happy to work with the noble Baroness to bring forward amendments on Report. Clearly, we want to make sure that the duty is on the Government and public authorities more generally. I therefore very much welcome the thrust of this suite of amendments.

I also cosigned the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, very much for the reasons she articulated. The role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is crucial in our defence. RFA “Lyme Bay” is—or has been—in the Middle East, responding to a crisis. It serves our security and defence very significantly. As the noble Baroness pointed out, those on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are not civil servants in a traditional sense. They may be civilians, but the service they are giving is the sort that would seem to make coming under the purview of the Armed Forces covenant appropriate. If His Majesty’s Government disagree with that idea, could the Minister explain why and suggest ways in which it can be ensured that civilians serving on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are not suffering any detriment, which is exactly what the Armed Forces covenant is intended to countermount?

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the scope of the Armed Forces covenant. I thank the noble Baronesses for the speeches they have made. I found what they said convincing, although I look forward to the response from my noble friend the Minister and expect I will find his reply even more convincing.

I want to take the opportunity to raise a practical example of where I hope the provisions in Clause 2, with or without the amendment, might make a difference. I suspect it will come as no surprise to the Committee that it relates to the role of the covenant in relation to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. I should mention here that, in the past, I have been a paid consultant to the Forces Pension Society, and I thank the society for providing me with a briefing on the matters I am going to raise. I should add that it was when working with the society that I became aware of the practical significance that members of the Armed Forces place on the covenant. It is significant not just as some general principle but as applying to practical situations.

By way of background, the Armed Forces Pension Scheme provides a world-class pension, and it is an important bond in the relationship between those who govern and those who serve—otherwise known as the Armed Forces covenant. It is designed to incentivise service, maximise the human element of defence’s operational effectiveness, facilitate servicepeople’s transition to civilian employment and provide for a dignified retirement. That is why I have been concerned by the recent reports of veterans being told that they must repay substantial sums of pension that they have received because those pensions were calculated incorrectly at some point in the past. The issue has received considerable coverage on the BBC, and in the Times, the Telegraph, the Express and the it Paper.

Please bear with me in explaining the problem, because the scheme’s administrative arrangements are a little complicated. Defence Business Services is responsible for the scheme through Veterans UK. It has contracted in turn Sopra Steria to deliver the pensions. Sopra Steria has in turn sub-subcontracted Equiniti as its paymaster, and the system is overseen by the Armed Forces Pension Board, supporting the Secretary of State for Defence as the scheme manager. There are clear doubts about how Defence Business Services, Veterans UK, Sopra Steria and Equiniti should be held to account. There are other problems, but I want to highlight the disappointing pattern of overpayments in areas such as pension sharing on divorce, early departure payments, guaranteed minimum pensions and national insurance modifications. Between 1,000 and 2,000 members have received such overpayments, which indicates a lack of rigour in calculation, inadequate training, a lack of oversight and paucity of quality assurance.

I will give the Committee two examples. I will not name the individuals involved, but the circumstances illustrate the problem. One is a 72 year-old veteran who served in the Army for 31 years, reaching the rank of warrant officer class 1, but who faces having to repay a pension overpayment of £37,500. This arose from four separate errors in the calculation of his pension. The second example is a 70 year-old former RAF flight lieutenant who was overpaid by £32,000. He queried the increase when he first received it but was told it was correct. Years later, he has now been told that there was indeed an error, and it is he, not the administrator, who is liable for repayment. It is worth noting that there are many cases with higher overpayments, but these cases illustrate the complex nature of the problems members face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

I support my noble friend and declare an interest in that my daughter is a serving member of the reserves. Amendment 7 would have helped her enormously in the autumn when she received her call-up papers to join the Welsh Guards in Kenya. She had a wisdom tooth issue and had been on the waiting list for some time. Because her reservist service was not known to her dentist or, frankly, anyone else, she was very nearly medically undeployable and people had to bend rules. That had an effect not only for her and the Welsh Guards but for her employer, who had to sign up to give her the time off to go and do three months with the Welsh Guards. That was a real-time example of why these amendments really matter.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. As he said, they should not bring a financial cost but might bring material benefits for the individual reservists and for defence. There are all sorts of questions that could and should be considered. If somebody is a serving member of the Regular Armed Forces, they will be dealt with. If you are a reservist, however, and you cannot get your dental appointment, or if you are deployed, you do not have your six-monthly check-up with your NHS dentist and you get deregistered, where does that leave you next time around?

There are all sorts of questions that could be dealt with in a relatively straightforward way, as long as medical and dental practices understood that somebody was a reservist. The idea is that you would be happy to say, “This is my status”, but could there not be regular questions? There are all sorts of things that medical practices will ask, or when you go to the dentist. Do you take medication? Do you have any health issues? Has anything changed? You could also be asked whether you are a member of the Armed Forces, or a reservist? It should not be too difficult.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I too am pleased to support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Harlech, both of which, I believe, attempt to strengthen the Armed Forces covenant, much as my amendments in the previous group were intended to do.

Amendment 6 addresses what could become a gap in the application of the covenant. It is all very well and good placing this new legal duty on select public bodies, but that duty means little if those bodies cannot identify who among their community belongs to the Armed Forces. This amendment attempts to correct that by requiring the relevant bodies to ask, sensitively and consistently, whether an individual falls within that community and to distinguish reserve service from veteran status, since the two carry quite different implications for practical support. I understand that this is something a number of hospital trusts have started to do when patients attend their A&E departments. Identifying early on whether a patient is a serving member of the Armed Forces or a veteran allows clinicians to develop tailored care.

Amendment 7 addresses the operational readiness of our Reserve Forces, which I know is of particular importance to many of my noble friends, as eloquently attested by my noble friend Lord Harlech. This Bill extends liability for callout and recall, which we will discuss later, but that rests on an assumption—a very important assumption—that reservists are medically fit to serve when summoned.

There is nothing in the current drafting that asks health bodies to have any regard whatever to that reality. My noble friend’s amendment remedies this. The provision has effect only where patients are already of equivalent clinical priority, at which point a reservist’s mobilisation requirements may be properly weighed.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech for raising these two important issues about the potential operation of the covenant once a legal duty is established. I very much hope that the Minister will give these amendments the due consideration that they merit.

--- Later in debate ---

So what I am saying is that the Bill itself lays out the requirement for a significant extension of both the specified persons and specified areas to have due regard to the covenant, and of course that would then apply to pensions in terms of having due regard to the covenant for people who are administering them—in answer to my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on the previous amendments.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Could the Minister clarify something? The definition of “health body” refers to NHS England and integrated care boards. Does that include dental services, just to put that on the record?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My assumption would be that it includes all NHS services. The serious point that I am making is that page 2, on the extension to the national bodies and covering matters, starts to try to deal with some of the various points that the noble Lord has quite rightly made, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for his views.

Amendment 6 would require bodies subject to the covenant duty to ask and record whether an individual belongs to an Armed Forces community. I recognise the intent behind the amendment and that the recording of someone’s Armed Forces status does not always happen as it could or should. We are continuing to encourage improvements in that area, because it is important that we do that as far as possible. We do not believe, however, that it is appropriate to place statutory requirements on these bodies to ask them to record an individual’s Armed Forces status. It may not always be necessary for the delivery of services or the removal of disadvantage, so it risks imposing an additional administrative burden, for limited benefit.

In many cases, bodies subject to the duty, such as Government Ministers, make decisions about the Armed Forces community in general rather than about specific individuals. It would therefore be impractical and unnecessary to require these bodies to establish whether every individual who is or may be using their public services is a member of the Armed Forces community, which is what the amendment would require. It is important to say to the noble Lord that the covenant duty’s updated statutory guidance already highlights the importance of bodies identifying who is in the Armed Forces community, giving them the flexibility to determine the best way forward, rather than imposing a rigid statutory requirement. I hope that answers to an extent some of the questions asked the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. We have statutory guidance that we have updated to try to improve the situation as well.

On Amendment 7, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that our Reserve Forces are medically ready when called upon. Fitness to serve is already a fundamental consideration for the services when reservists are being considered for mobilisation. Active reservists, as the noble Lord will know better than most, are subject to pre-mobilisation health checks delivered through defence primary healthcare arrangements, and individuals will not be mobilised unless they meet the relevant service medical standards.

I share the objective of maintaining reserve readiness, but the amendment is not the appropriate means of achieving that objective. It would place a new statutory duty on health bodies across the UK to take account of reservist mobilisation status in the exercise of public health and social care functions. The proposed new clause would require health bodies to take defence readiness into account when allocating access to examination or treatment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will make a few brief comments on the amendments in this group. I am quite attracted to and interested in them, because the noble Lord indicated that they all amount to accountability; to me, they are more about consistency. Throughout the United Kingdom, there are various ways of implementing the Armed Forces covenant. I declare an interest as a former member of the Northern Ireland security forces and the armed services. This is about consistency, because the UK Government, the devolved institutions and the local administrations have different mechanisms and ways of developing and producing results. Only a few months ago, there was a difficulty in Belfast City Council whereby Sinn Féin attempted to block the signing of the Armed Forces covenant.

We want to ensure—and I see it in these amendments —that we have a process of reporting back to Parliament and the people that this is working effectively and consistently. I want to see that level of consistency throughout the various administrations and governments. For example, in Northern Ireland we have a different way of developing health services from England. That is only one example; there are many more, such as education and local government. All I want is to see that consistency. I hope that a reporting mechanism such as that proposed by the noble Lord would be one way of achieving that. It would be a positive implementation of the Armed Forces covenant. It would almost be a covenant with not only the Armed Forces but between the Armed Forces, the Government and the people.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for bringing forward this series of amendments. They are important for accountability and the role of Parliament, and they will have implications for local government. I am not declaring an interest because it was a long time ago, but I was a city councillor in Cambridge for 12 years. The first seven years were under a Labour Government, and the last five years were under a Coalition Government. One of the things that was very clear in local government was that central government would have many bright ideas: things that they would suggest could be done by local authorities—for example, free bus passes. That had asymmetric implications for local authorities. It was very difficult for local authorities to kick back. There was no opportunity for them to say, “We cannot do this”. It was not a matter of a government of one particular colour or another; it was central government versus local authorities.

We now have a new Prime Minister, and seemingly a new enthusiasm from the Government to think again about devolution and the relationship between central government and local government. Until we have clarity on that, it is important for us to be aware of the implications of extending the Armed Forces covenant to local authorities. Here, I might sound as though I am caught on the road to Damascus: I had seen the light, and thought that the Armed Forces covenant should be extended to central government—which I still believe—but am I now saying that we do not need to extend it to local government?

Of course, local authorities need to be there, but we need to be clear what the requirements are, and the funding arrangements, if we are imposing new duties on local authorities. Clarity from the Government about some of the implications—looking at Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morse—is very important. I also ask the Minister to give us clarity on how this legislation stands in relation to the devolved nations; the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, raised the question of consistency. It is one thing to look at local authorities within England, but it is another to look at Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Obviously, defence is a retained power—it is a national, United Kingdom-wide policy—but in terms of devolution, how does this fit with what the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland Executive have the power to do? What is the opportunity for ensuring that we have the consistency that the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, is rightly saying that we need? This should not be a question of where you are from in the United Kingdom; that should not impact how well you are able to access the roles and responsibilities of the Armed Forces covenant.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for these amendments, and I must confess that I find myself in some sympathy with the spirit of most of them. Amendments 12 and 13 seek an independent review of how the new covenant legal duty operates in practice three years after commencement, with a copy laid before both Houses, and an annual report to Parliament prepared by the Secretary of State. That is simply good legislative housekeeping, as we are expanding the covenant duty quite considerably, and Parliament would be failing in its own responsibilities if it simply passed this provision and walked away, hoping for the best. So, in principle, I am in agreement with the noble Lord.

However, I have an inherent aversion to the creation of yet another independent authority to oversee the operation of government policy, as set out in Amendment 12, and I am not convinced that this provides the taxpayer with good value for money. If a review or reporting requirement is to be introduced, it is best to find another avenue. It is more sensible, for example, to give the review or reporting duty to the new Armed Forces Commissioner, whose office is set up for precisely this sort of work, and this overview of welfare issues. I hope that is something the Government might be prepared to consider.

The third amendment in this group would require an impact assessment from local authorities before commencement. Although that appears to be a suggestion of basic prudence, I note that the impact assessment produced by the department specifically for the extension of the covenant legal duty includes considerable analysis of the new burdens on local authorities. It is not often that I give a supporting hand to the Government—I do not promise to make a habit of doing so—but, where they have fulfilled their duty efficiently, I am prepared to acknowledge that and give due praise. So, in this amendment, I am not convinced that it is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 16 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Minto; I will also speak to the other amendments in the group. Notwithstanding that in the next group I shall be critical about the creation of the defence housing service, my three amendments in this group are intended to try to strengthen the new body created by Clause 3. I have my reservations about that new body, and I shall clarify that in subsequent debate, but I have enough experience of these things to know that I am very unlikely to stop a determined Government establishing this new body. If it is to exist, I would like it to be the best it can possibly be, and that is the approach I take with these amendments.

Amendment 16 is intended to create a new function for the DHS. As drafted, Clause 3 sets out a number of objectives for the defence housing service and its functions, including

“improving the supply and quality of defence housing … managing land or other property used (or formerly used) for defence purposes … securing the regeneration or development of such land or other property, and … supporting in other ways—(i) the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and (ii) the continued wellbeing of those communities”.

I am sure there are no noble Lords who would object to those objectives; I certainly do not. But given the history of the service family accommodation estate and the severe challenges for morale, recruitment and retention caused by the state of the housing offered, I think it is necessary to introduce a fifth objective, which is what this amendment tries to achieve. That new objective would quite simply be

“improving the satisfaction of service … families with the accommodation provided”.

I have no doubt that those who dreamed up the imaginative idea of establishing a new independent government body to operate and oversee the family housing estate had that very aim front and centre of their thoughts. But if that was their central objective, and they believe it should be the central objective of the defence housing service, why is it not one of the explicit functions laid out in new Section 343E(1)? It is perfectly reasonable and eminently sensible to make this small change to the Bill to ensure that the satisfaction of those who will be using the housing provided by the DHS is improved by the creation of this new body. It would be fairly straightforward to measure by using the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Surveys. If it does not improve, that would be a sure indicator that this new body has failed in its task. Conversely, if it does improve, it would be a clear indicator that the DHS has succeeded and my scepticism has been unduly harsh.

Amendment 19 would require the chief executive of the DHS to report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces. This amendment was tabled by my right honourable friend Mark Francois in the other place in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the lines of accountability for the defence housing service. From reading Hansard from the other place, I am not quite convinced that we have nailed down this issue. My right honourable friend raised the point that the DHS will report to the National Armaments Director and asked the Minister in the other place why that decision was taken. Unfortunately, answer came there none. I would be grateful if the Minister could now give me a straightforward answer to the question of why the line of accountability is to the National Armaments Director.

The more fundamental point is that accountability really matters. We know how shoddy the provision of service family housing has been and how our service personnel have suffered as a result. None of us wants that to be allowed to continue, but I am acutely concerned that this new organisation may end up becoming infected with what I might describe as bureaucratic capture, a disease that has afflicted so many independent public bodies over the years. If this occurs, we may very well see the DHS prioritise its own interests over those of the service families it is intended to help. Consequently, clear lines of accountability to Ministers, who are in turn accountable to Parliament, are paramount; my amendment attempts to embed that in the Bill.

Amendment 20 has a similar intended effect. It would require the defence housing service to have an oversight board comprising four members of each of the three service branches, to be chosen in a manner decided by the Defence Council, although it is my intention to have them elected by their peers. To be eligible for the oversight board, an individual would have to live, or have recently lived, in service family accommodation to ensure they have the requisite experience of the system. This would ensure that the concerns and views of those who actually live in the housing provided by the DHS are represented directly at the top. I suggest that, in this way, we can further guard against the tendency for the DHS to be captured by its own interests as a bureaucracy and ensure it never forgets those who really matter.

I sincerely hope the Government take this suggestion on board. I simply cannot believe that any noble Lord would be opposed to giving our service men and women a greater voice in the provision of their housing. I hope the Minister, in keeping with the new Prime Minister’s appetite for collaboration and constructive relationships between government and opposition, can find it in himself to agree to these amendments—if not in drafting, at least in spirit.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, for years we have talked about standards of service accommodation. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, when she was a Minister, stood up many times and answered questions, as did so many of her predecessors as Ministers of State for Defence. Much of that was about service family accommodation, but not only that—some of it was about single living accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

17: Clause 3, page 8, line 24, at end insert—
“(aa) single living accommodation,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add single living accommodation to the definition of defence housing to ensure that defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation as well as service family accommodation.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, my two amendments, which have been signed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, seek to fill a gap that arose in the Renters’ Rights Act in 2025. There was much discussion, and an amendment, to ensure that service family accommodation would be raised to the equivalent of decent homes. The same was not done for single living accommodation, and that may well reflect the fact that there is not exactly an equivalent of single living accommodation in civilian life. Nevertheless, it is vital that individuals living in single living accommodation should have decent homes and decent accommodation.

It might be tempting to assume that those living in single living accommodation will be new recruits, young service personnel. But, as my honourable friend Ian Roome, a member of the Defence Select Committee and a member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in the other place, pointed out, many service personnel spend much of their working life in the forces in single accommodation. It is not simply a question of living there until you get married and have a family; it may be that you live there because your partner and family are living in family accommodation somewhere else. This is something that does not just affect individuals; it may still affect service families.

--- Later in debate ---

I think all of us are united in the belief that for too long our military has had to live in accommodation that is substandard and does not reflect the Armed Forces’ professionalism and the pride we have in them. All of us, together, want to see that improved as quickly as possible. As I said, we believe that the Government’s approach, in the way I have laid out, gives us that opportunity for us all to come together, move forward and deliver the improvements to military housing that we would all like to see, to give our military personnel the accommodation that they deserve.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the difference in the single living accommodation and service family accommodation. In my opening remarks, I acknowledged that, clearly, there are not direct comparators, because the approach to single living is somewhat different. I would be grateful if the Minister would be willing to have a meeting to discuss this and explore a little more about single living accommodation and, in particular, the extent of the independent review and what that is covering. Pending that, I may—

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have committed to that. I said at the outset that I will meet and discuss with noble Lords—indeed, including the noble Baroness—the issues that have arisen. This is Committee. It is about clarifying the Government’s thoughts, with the Government thinking that, perhaps, this is not quite as clear as it needs to be, and listening to the ideas that other Members are having. So of course we can discuss how we take forward the single living accommodation.

The point I am making, and have made, is that what we have before us is dealing with family living accommodation. Single living accommodation is being dealt with, but there is another vehicle being used to deliver that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the Minister. What I was about to say—and will continue saying—is that, in light of the debate, I will withdraw the amendment, but I may bring it back on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.